It occurs to me that the debate section of this forum is a little US dominated. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course, but since I've started to frequent the area a bit more I feel like I should create somewhere to vent without derailing such threads as the presidential candidates discussion. I suspect that many yanks haven't a clue who IDS and Flanders are, so this might be a welcome addition. Perhaps the ASB section has been spoiling me.

This thread is intended to be a platform for discussing issues from a British starting point. How's the government doing, what do you think of the relationship with Europe, should we still be acting like we've got a bigger stick than everyone else?

I'm not particularly fond of the seeming cohesion between the two at times. This, of course, may be coloured by certain things I don't agree with (certain things to do with the World Wars, most things about Israel, etc), but I still think that Britain should deal with the US the same as they would with any country, and ditto the other way.

Of course, I'm nowhere near an authority on this, just giving my opinion.

__________________

------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealthy

As may be expected though, our clear winner here was Kairne, ASB's champion of prioritizing the pokemon you like over those that are objectively better. I mean, one of his mains is a Watchog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sneezey12

KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

To start the ball rolling, I wonder how UPNers feel about the 'special' relationship. Is it special? Should it be special?

Brits, do we want to pal up to the Americans (and does it depend upon their leaders?)?

Americans, do you remotely care if we're staunch allies or more like the French and a bit more aloof with you?

I don't think it's very fun for Britain when America drags them through American-made tracts of shit. It's not only unpopular at home (in the UK) but it makes Britain's international image sour alongside their American counterpart's as well. If the relationship were more balanced -- if you guys dragged us through the mud as much as we did you, and ideally if we dragged each other through the mud a whole lot less -- then I think it'd be fine.

That stated, having the UK as an ally is a fun, somewhat historically quirky thing. I mean, America just fought for independence from Britain not even 150 years before it buddied up with them again in WW1, and ever since then Britain's been edging out France as America's #1 European BFF. In today's America, most Americans make fun of France a lot, calling them smelly, arrogant, and quick to surrender. It's a lot of crap made all the more offensive when you consider that France was hugely supportive of the American nation both at its onset and throughout the 19th century. Entering the first world war as late as we did says a lot for how detached Americans felt they were from Europeans in the 1910s, but I still think there's something to be said for the camaraderie of Americans coming to bail out their French brothers. "You helped us out in our time of peril: now it's our turn, friends. " And yet fast forward to today and punks everywhere are completely disrespectful of France. So now we come back to the UK. I find it humorous that we've socially turned coat on a country that helped us to become the country we are today yet we've not only socially but also politically become BFFs with the crown we fought tooth and nail to secure our independence from. I think it really comes back to (1) shared language means you're automatically more open towards them than you may be to other foreigners and (2) American culture is still hugely English-influenced even today, though of course we're the so-called Big Melting Pot and we have cultural influences from all over the world.

And being half-English and an American myself, I of course enjoy the fact that America and England are on good terms with one another. I would be sad if America's ugly habit of being the Self-Appointed International Policeman resulted in Britons distancing themselves from us. I think it's fair to say that we've culturally influenced Britain in the last few decades about as much as Britain has influenced us. You guys gave us American Idol, we gave you guys Britain's Got Talent. You guys gave us the Spice Girls, we gave you guys Britney Spears. You guys gave us Top Gear, we gave you guys Mythbusters. You guys gave us Doctor Who, we gave you guys Battlestar Galactica. On and on the list goes. It's been a hugely mutual exchange of ideas and media and it'd be a shame if one or the other of us decided to snobbishly turn up our noses at the others' trends because of a consciously-enforced disdain for their country.

You asked about whether you can be aloof from us in international politics or whether you have to staunchly stand with us. I think everyone has to recognize that part of being a sovereign nation means you govern yourself and make your own policies. The UK is not the 53rd American state nor is the USA a shadow member of the Commonwealth. If you guys want to disagree with us about interfering in a particular hot spot, I say go for it. If you want to disagree with us about certain energy, environmental, or intellectual property policies, be my guest. I just think the saying "with allies like them who needs enemies?" would become true if, say, you only stood with us on 1% of all important issues. But duh the case is very nearly the dead opposite, and duh that's a bit blemishing for Britain's image on the international stage. America's gaffes become Britain's gaffes and that isn't good for either. Even for the Americans it'd arguably be better for you to not inherit our gaffes since it'd mean we could ask you to speak on our behalf on some matter where we dun goofed.

To start the ball rolling, I wonder how UPNers feel about the 'special' relationship. Is it special? Should it be special?

Brits, do we want to pal up to the Americans (and does it depend upon their leaders?)?

Americans, do you remotely care if we're staunch allies or more like the French and a bit more aloof with you?

A most interesting take. I know next to nothing about British Politics, so I'll be interested in learning.

As for your question, I don't mind being allied with Britain, and since we're mired in a bunch of treaties with them, we had better uphold our end of them. Maybe not to the extant of "Buddy Buddy" with them, and certainly I think we shouldn't try to dictate much in your affairs (except when it directly impacts our own security).

I don't mind America carrying the biggest stick in the world, and I would certainly fear for my country if that role was diverged to another country, so I can possibly understand Britain maybe not enjoying our Looming Presence across the Atlantic as much as we do, but I personally think there is no better suited nation than ours to have that kind of power. Not because we're special and deserve it, or because we saved everyone in both World Wars, nor because we poor billions of dollars into Military Funding, but rather because our government is such that, at least when working properly, can always be reigned back by our own people, and checked, if it gets out of hand. Thus making us a deliberating body. (Though unfortunately I admit we haven't done so as often as I think we should, which has resulted in some unfortunate occurrences.)

I too enjoy the switch from France (and, truthfully, most of Europe) to Britain, Talon. If Britain hadn't been so powerful at the time, paradoxically, America would not have won its independence (at that particular time) because it would not have been in Europe's interests to fuck us up so epicly. Now there is indeed a great deal of cultural exchange, as there is with other English speaking nations such as Canada. That's the fun part of us being the old imperial dominator, we sowed a great many seeds we can now harvest. America is now the imperial power, and they get to harvest any of them as well.

What you say is interesting, UM. In terms of the many treaties we have across with each other, it's wise to remember that you have those with everyone. The same logic would lead one to say that you should be nice to Iran, for example.

Also, the key thing to remember about British politics is that the Queen has a death ray mounted in her Scottish fortress. She can eliminate those who oppose her.

That stated, having the UK as an ally is a fun, somewhat historically quirky thing. I mean, America just fought for independence from Britain not even 150 years before it buddied up with them again in WW1, and ever since then Britain's been edging out France as America's #1 European BFF. In today's America, most Americans make fun of France a lot, calling them smelly, arrogant, and quick to surrender. It's a lot of crap made all the more offensive when you consider that France was hugely supportive of the American nation both at its onset and throughout the 19th century. Entering the first world war as late as we did says a lot for how detached Americans felt they were from Europeans in the 1910s, but I still think there's something to be said for the camaraderie of Americans coming to bail out their French brothers. "You helped us out in our time of peril: now it's our turn, friends. " And yet fast forward to today and punks everywhere are completely disrespectful of France.

A whole lot of this anti-French sentiment comes from the Vietnam generation where France dragged us into that quagmire, but I think it may stem even more from the propaganda machine turning so strongly against them when they opposed our misguided and incredibly stupid invasion of Iraq. The full weight of the Republican news machine turned against France fast, throwing enough shit at them where they had no idea that the "freedom fries" nonsense was only coming from one part of the media. The fact that American tourists are typically pompous and loud before being treated "arrogantly" by the French may have something to do with the perception as well.

On the British side of things, I wish Australia would move out of Britain's spare room and become its own country, but I like the buddy-buddy relationship the US has with the UK now- a lot of people forget that though the big "buddying up" as Talon calls it happened in WWI Britain had been doing us solid favors for decades before, not the least of which was supporting the Monroe Doctrine- which we had absolutely no chance of being able to enforce without the amount of British support we received.

What you say is interesting, UM. In terms of the many treaties we have across with each other, it's wise to remember that you have those with everyone. The same logic would lead one to say that you should be nice to Iran, for example.

Of course, we should maintain our end of the treaties with everyone whom we've treated with.

Quote:

Also, the key thing to remember about British politics is that the Queen has a death ray mounted in her Scottish fortress. She can eliminate those who oppose her.

I'm curious about this death ray, what kind is it? Or are you making reference to something, not speaking literally?

I'm curious about this death ray, what kind is it? Or are you making reference to something, not speaking literally?

Nah, I kid. More seriously, she has certain constitutional powers which allow her to prevent legislation from going through, but these are not used. Were they to be used, it would create a constitutional crisis and we'd simply get rid of those powers for her.

Oh Merc, you know they took the death ray down after they used it that one time.

(Sorry for the Sun, but it was the only article I could find that specifically went on about the death ray rather than just mentioning it in passing. Go figure).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercutio

To start the ball rolling, I wonder how UPNers feel about the 'special' relationship. Is it special? Should it be special?

I am not a fan, for several reasons. First off, I think it's foolish of us to pretend that in recent years this has been much more than us doing as we're told - voicing America's opinions and pretending that when America get their way it's what we wanted. The Obama administration appears to have dropped most pretence of the special relationship anyway ("Las Malvinas" my arse), which at least is honest if not particularly smart. I'd much rather we worked more closely with Europe, where there's no individual country too much more powerful than us so we might actually get a say (although of course after so many years of buddying up to the States, most of Europe hates us these days).

Secondly, after so much of our recent (~400 years or so) history has been getting away from the nepotism and suchlike inherent in having a nobility, we're becoming more Americanised and thus, I fear, drifting further right politically speaking. It's kinda inevitable given how inundated we are with American culture. The less government support we have in things like education and healthcare, the bigger the advantage the children of the wealthy and powerful get through no merit of their own, and the more it becomes who you know rather than what you can do that determines how far you get in life. Not an apocalyptic aghhh end of society as we know it scenario, but not a nice one. One suspects it's part of why the remenants of European artistocracy largely support Europes right wing parties.

Things like the NHS should be inviolable, but judging by the noises the government is making these days they're not. Obviously my fears with this are going to be coloured by having lived under a Labour government since I was five til I was eighteen - I may be completely missing the mark and the Thatcher & Major governments may have made the exact same noises with no real consequences.

It wasn't a particularly interesting or well informed answer, so I wouldn't worry :p. Basically I just think the US has some poor cultural values which we inevitably get a little inundated with by their pop culture.

Opinion on the cabinet reshuffle once I've had a chance to look at what's going on (been a bit out of the news loop of late), but did I hear something about Ken Clarke potentially getting shafted?

Yeah, Clarke's in the frame to get ousted, possibly demoted to leader of the Commons (replacing Young). The big four offices of State should stay in place, Gove should stay where he is. Lansley might be moved, though a lot of Tories I know think otherwise. Laws back in to the Cabinet Office. I think he's going to pander to the right a little.

Difficult to do in such confines, you're best getting a book. Standard parliamentary system, though. Please excuse any perceived patronisation, no idea how much you know :/

Broadly speaking, parliament is a bicameral system. The Commons is the lower chamber, analogous to the House of Representatives in America or Australia. The upper chamber is the Lords, making it the Senate in such a comparison. The Commons has the power, and is the chamber which is directly elected. The Lords has power in as much as the Commons allows it to exercise its powers, much like the Queen. Generally, if you hear pundits talking about parliament being pissed off, they're talking about the Commons. This is like calling America Representatives Congressman, a bit confusing.

The Commons is comprised of roughly 650 MPs who are elected to represent constituencies. They win based on plurality (FPTP), so it's possible to be the holder of the seat with 20% of the vote much like in other countries. The government is generally formed from the party with the largest number of seats in the Commons. In the case of the current government, that's the Conservative party, but because they lack a majority they require the support of the Liberal Democrat party's seats in order to lead. Elections are called at times of the PM's choosing but must occur within five years of each other. Thus, having had one in 2010, we must have one by May 2015 or earlier.

The Commons is where new laws are (usually) given their first try. It contains the majority of government ministers, who are MPs themselves, and is where the more powerful committees draw their members. The Prime Minister nowadays is drawn from the Commons. This isn't so much a rule as a case of nobody being dumb enough to pick a PM that you didn't elect.

That brings us to the Lords, which is comprised of a large and growing number of peers. There are a few types. Most are Life Peers, who have their seats until they die. There's also a remnant of the old hereditary peers, then there's a few bishops etc and a few other things. Important thing to know is that the Lords are not elected. Recent attempts to reform this have been scuppered for a variety of reasons depending on who you ask, but it's basically because the Conservative party doesn't really want it to happen and the Labour party (formerly in power under Blair and Brown, currently in opposition) opposed on the basis of 'procedure' (which is code for wanting to piss on the coalition and stir things up).

The Lords is there to pass more measured judgement on legislation. They can amend things and force the Commons to change things. Because they're not elected, they don't have as much political pressure to do the popular thing. Additionally, they are under much less party pressure than the MPs. Owing to a reform 100 years ago, if the Commons wishes to overrule the Lords they can do. However, this generally looks bad so doesn't happen often. The Lords as a rule opposes things on merit, as opposed to because they feel like it.

Dunno what else you might want to know really. Basically power is in the Commons and the most important people e.g. Prime Minister, Chancellor (Finance Minister), Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc are basically always drawn from their members. The Commons is also the one that more people pay attention to and that people get stick for.

This is all obviously very simplified. I'm sure down the line I'll realise I've missed something out. Anything you specifically want to know I can probably tell you (or else that Ł15,000 was a bit wasted!).

Elaboration on the Lords - the hereditary peers have basically been culled (and the remaining ones will not pass on their right to sit when they die, so once all the current ones are dead we're done with them). There are also some Bishops of the Church of England (about 20?) and some politicaly appointed peers from each of the major parties. The rest though are appointed by an independant commission on the basis of being experts in a particular area. For example, my college principal is a member of the lords (Lord Krebs) - he's a zoologist and ecologist who was previously chairman of the Food Standards Agency. He only speaks in the House when there's an environmental or higher education based bill. (Side note: it was really funny hearing about him and the Chancellor of the university, Lord Patten, disagreeing in the Lords over raising tuition fees).

The idea is that the whenever a bill passes the commons, the lords who actually know something about that area talk about it and the other lords listen as they would want to be listened to in their area, essentially creating a big group of experts the government can't just ignore because the facts don't suit their agenda. As Merc said, if the commons passes something three times the Lords can no longer block it (nominally the sitting monarch could veto at this point, but that hasn't been done in over 300 years because the backlash would be hilarious).

Mm. The Lords is actually a great institution, in many ways. The theory of the expertise being independent and non partisan actually being able to push back legislation is great. Unfortunately, it's not perfect, and people understandably feel threatened by the idea of unelected legislators.

Mm. The Lords is actually a great institution, in many ways. The theory of the expertise being independent and non partisan actually being able to push back legislation is great. Unfortunately, it's not perfect, and people understandably feel threatened by the idea of unelected legislators.

I can understand why people feel threatened by unelected people in parliament, but they have deliberately less power than the elected chamber and frankly if politicians could be trusted to listen to people who actually have a clue what they're talking about before legislating on specialised areas, the Lords wouldn't be needed. Who was that government drugs expert advisor who got fired because his advice didn't fit government policy? Professor Nutt?

The idea is that the whenever a bill passes the commons, the lords who actually know something about that area talk about it and the other lords listen as they would want to be listened to in their area, essentially creating a big group of experts the government can't just ignore because the facts don't suit their agenda. As Merc said, if the commons passes something three times the Lords can no longer block it (nominally the sitting monarch could veto at this point, but that hasn't been done in over 300 years because the backlash would be hilarious).